Western Imperialism Strikes Again

In his 2005 exposé, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, John Perkins describes his life as an economic hit man in the 1970s. As a chief economist for the consulting firm Chas. T. Main, Perkins worked with U.S. intelligence agencies and multinational corporations to convince foreign leaders to build infrastructure projects in their countries financed by billions of dollars of loans from the World Bank and other lending institutions. Perkins’ job was to provide phony or exaggerated predictions of the economic benefits of such programs for the country undertaking the massive loans. Once hooked into loans it ultimately could not repay, the victimized country was then used as a pawn to further U.S. foreign policy and economic interests.

In the classic one hand washes the other and both hands wash the face scheme, the loans were given with the stipulation that the construction and engineering contracts for the projects were awarded to American companies. In return, handsome bribes and kickbacks were provided to the signatories (heads of state). Those on the hook were the taxpayers in the developing countries who were stuck with massive debt they could not repay. Not only did the imperialistic scheme destroy any hope the world’s poor had for developing their countries, when default happened the U.S. or the International Monetary Fund would move in and dictate the terms of bankruptcy which included everything from control of its budget to dictating its United Nations votes to security agreements.

According to Perkins, from time to time there were foreign heads of state that refused to play ball, refused to accept financial remuneration for acquiescing to loans that would enrich American companies and ultimately place their countries in bankruptcy with the U.S. government acting as receiver. When that happened jackals were sent in to eliminate the obstruction. Perkins mentions at least two leaders, President Jaime Roldos Aguilera of Ecuador and General Omar Torrijos of Panama who were assassinated because they put the best interest of their countries ahead of their personal greed. If assassination were not possible pretences for full military invasion were produced to bring the rogue leader to justice. Panama’s Manuel Noriega was “brought to justice” in this manner.

And that brings us to our current involvement in Libya. It is a well-known fact that Muammar Gadaffi has been an international pariah for most of his 42 years ruling Libya. However, in 2004 after Gadaffi ended his quest for weapons of mass destruction, President Bush lifted sanctions against Libya. Since then American companies have invested heavily in Libya. For instance, energy giants ConocoPhillips and Marathon have each invested about $700 million. Everything seemed to be going great.

However, let’s not forget that Gadaffi has always marched to his own tune. Over time Gadaffi began demanding tougher contract terms, big bonuses up front, and most remarkably he demanded that global oil companies operating in Libya pay the $1.5 billion bill for Libya’s role in the attack on Pan Am Flight 103 and other terrorist attacks or face “serious consequences” for their oil leases. But perhaps the last straw for American imperialists was Gadaffi’s plan to unite African and Arab states under a new currency to rival the dollar and Euro. Under the proposal, oil and other resources would be sold only for gold dinars. The economic implications for the West would be immense.

All of these moves by Gadaffi have not only made it difficult for western oil companies to operate in Libya, his gold dinar proposal could be the beginning of the end for western currency hegemony. Gadaffi had not held up his end of the deal with western corporatists. He was not “playing ball”. Western special operations forces on the ground in Libya were unable to covertly assassinate the Libyan leader. Thus, under the pretense of protecting civilians, NATO instituted a military “no-fly zone” over Libya. Make no mistake about it, military operations in the skies over Libya have always been about regime change in Libya. NATO forces care about the civilians on the ground in Libya about as much as American forces cared about the more than one million Iraqis who have been killed as a result of our eight year war of “liberation” in that country.

At the end of the day, the Libyan experience doesn’t fit perfectly into the Economic Hit Man box but it does prove that western imperialism is alive and well in Libya. President Obama brilliantly employed Rahm Emanuel’s mantra “….never let a serious crisis go to waste” by using the protection of civilians as a pretense to eliminate a foreign leader who wouldn’t “play ball” with western corporate interests. Like Noriega before him, Gadaffi will go down in history as a leader who defied the global elite, escaped assassination but fell to military invasion. Anyone who doesn’t believe history repeats itself is a fool.

You might also like

Kenn – You should have mentioned that not only did John Perkins expose the international financial and intelligence conspiracy, but he discovered the powers of shapeshifting and astral projection. That makes him a much more credible source of information. Not only did he have inside knowledge about the secret cabal that controls governments, but if there was some information he didn’t have, he could turn into a bird or mentally travel through time in order to find it out.

Glenn Contrarian

*tips his hat in deference to Baronius and makes a mental note to not tick him off*

iball

I’m flabbergasted that anyone would attempt to associate the US with the dastardly deeds John Perkins has described in his book. Since its inception the US has bent over backwards to bring peace, love, democracy, prosperity and human rights to all people. It bravely tried to obliterate the original inhabitants of America with huge doses of altruism to save them from the horrors of self-sufficiency and self determination.
Such overwhelming benevolence laid the groundwork for US foreign policy in Central America where thousands upon thousands of indigenous people were slaughtered to help them pursue happiness.
In Libya the US and its European cousins are heroically dropping bombs on the people there to teach them that in order to live better lives they must be relieved of the responsibility of managing their own natural resources of huge oil reserves and fresh water. Only with the US and NATO at the helm will they go from number 53 on the Human Development Index to a more realistic position somewhere near the bottom with Iraq at 163.

Kenn Jacobine

Because I have lived overseas for the last 10 years and have seen what goes on, John Perkins is more than a credible source for me.

Glenn Contrarian

Right.

Everything that’s going on in Libya was because Gadaffi “refused to play ball”. And of course what went on in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, and Syria have absolutely nothing to do with it…and I suppose that just as in all those other nations that are facing the upheaval of the ‘Arab Spring’, it’s all about the money and has nothing to do with what the people want.

Sure.

iball

For sure it’s all about what the people want. And the people in Libya want NATO/US to bomb them and install a puppet regime.
It’s called Iraq envy.

Kenn Jacobine

Glenn,

In Yemen and Syria the dictators have massacred their own people – why didn’t NATO intervene there? It is because western commercial interests were not at stake. In Libya, as I wrote, many multinationals have a lot at stake and it was just convenient that there was a revolt going on and Obama and NATO could use it as a pretense to invade

Face it Glenn, Obama is as big a war criminal as George W. Bush

zingzing

kenn, you can try to simplify it down to one thing, but there’s just no way you can honestly do that. if you were to acknowledge the complexities of the issue, it may actually make sense. but when you put forth one part of the whole as the whole itself, it just makes you look a tad simplistic.

there’s a great many things going on here. there’s the interests of the multinationals, as you suggest. then there’s the fact that the arab league was behind allowing the intervention in libya, but hasn’t yet given the go ahead in yemen or syria. then there’s the humanitarian issue (a flimsy reason, but powerful on an emotional level), which even as you deride it, you prop it up again when it serves your interests. then there’s the fact that the libyan revolution was the first to fail, and timing is important.

france was the one that clamored for an armed response in libya. what did they tell “war criminal” obama, kenn? do you know? i don’t know. (and if you really want to compare obama’s current actions to bush’s, well… obama’s a fish, certainly, but bush was a whale. and yes, i know.)

the multinationals have been known to take advantage of horrific situations in the past. it will be interesting to see if the international community offers “assistance” after the conflict has been decided.

that said, i don’t think anyone wanted to get into a continued conflict in libya. there certainly were no plans drawn up for invading before all this “arab spring” stuff came up. the idea is to topple the current regime (as per the wishes of the libyan people, and as per the wishes of many other interests). that hasn’t happened as quickly as was hoped.

and just what is john perkins to you? sounds a bit sexy.

http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

Kenn, the repression that is taking place in Yemen and Syria is unacceptable but the whole point about intervention in such countries is that it can’t be Western-led.

The difference to what happened in Libya is that there was a broad spectrum call for intervention, particularly including the Arab League, which has not been the case in these other countries.

Arch Conservative

“Face it Glenn, Obama is as big a war criminal as George W. Bush”

Seeing as Glenn, the world’s most ardent Obama apologist, just experienced a cranial explosion, we won’t be seeing any more of his inane posts round’ here.

Well done Kenn.

Kenn Jacobine

Chris, I am saying the U.S. Should stay out of all these conflicts. The Arab League and U.N. wanted a no-fly zone but NATO used that as an opportunity to expand the operation to include regime change. We don’t even know who the rebels are. We don’t care. That will be the next war to nourish the military-security industrial complex.

Glenn Contrarian

Kenn (and Arch) –

Face it Glenn, Obama is as big a war criminal as George W. Bush

Oh? Is that so?

Tell me, Kenn – how many American families have had to bury a son or daughter because of the Libyan war (in which we’re playing a supporting role)?

How many Libyans have been tortured with the direct approval and support of the American president?

How many Libyan civilians have been wrongfully imprisoned for years by the American president?

And how many ground troops do we have in Libya?

And how much are we spending in taxpayer dollars to support NATO in the Libyan conflict? (remember, we were spending over $10B per month in Iraq)

Kenn (and Arch), there’s a verse in the Bible where Jesus castigates a man who complains about the mote in someone else’s eye, but ignores the log in his own eye. It’s called ‘hypocrisy’. And to claim that Libya is even one tenth as bad as Iraq (in terms of human lives, taxpayer dollars spent, or war crimes committed) is blatant hypocrisy.

But don’t let little things like rank hypocrisy stop you from telling all the world that Obama’s every bit as bad as Your Boy Bush!

Cannonshop

Imperialism? Well, let’s see… a quick perusal of the basics of Imperialism, is that the nation pursuing it is doing so to make money.

It’s done for material gain. Now, I suppose there may be some short-term material gain in disrupting the flow of oil and thus, raising the price-per-barrel, but it strikes me as unlikely since the core of Imperial policies is to enforce stability in resource-generating areas.

The First gulf war was definitely Imperialist in character-Saddam’s iraq was trying to wrench a bigger share and in the process disrupt business relationships that benefitted American Allies in Europe at a time when the Cold war could well have heated back up.

Second Gulf war was also probably Imperialist in nature, as it brought a defined end to the Sanctions by way of eliminating the regime targeted by those sanctions (thus bringing Iraqi oil back onto the market-at least, hypothetically-a move that was good for business on the whole.)

But Libya? Seriously??

Kenn, I’d submit there’s an alternative explanation that does not require sooper-sekrit-bidness-cabals and other Konspirasees, because that alternative explanation fits the nature of the political actors in the WEST that have brought the U.S. (and by extension, NATO) into this conflict.

Wilsonian Moral Adventurism fits the political character of the regime in the U.S. far better than Imperialism. It’s similar to Imperialism, but rather different in its desired end-state objectives, and thus, far murkier, since it does not require the presence of even a lip-service acknowledgement of National Interest or real-world-economics.

Remember, being Pro-Business is the moral equivalent of a sin among the American Left, even as they pay out huge amounts of taxpayer dollars to bail out their friends on Wall Street. When you consider that Quaddafi was one foot on the banana peel and the other in the grave (speculations based on his public addresses and conduct in the immediate prior to this included signs of alzheimers and other medical issues), NATO involvement doesn’t make sense economically-the most basic objective of Imperialism is to make money-either by making resources available, or by controlling resource costs, remember.

Neither objective is achieved by NATO helping prolong the Libyan civil war, or making the rebel side more viable. Without NATO involvement, the war would likely be over by now, and Oil prices stabilized instead of climbing.

I’ll observe that we’re not really protecting civilians with this, so what’s left, is a wag-the-dog-and-pony-show.

Arch Conservative

Glenn
The parents of a 27 year old soldier who gre up in the same town that I did in New Hampshire had to bury their boy just last week because he died in Iraq. There have been plenty of American families that have had to bury loved ones that were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan thanks to Obama and the Dem Congress pretty much continuing Bush’s policies to a tee.

But you, being the stereotypical caricature leftist, don’t see it as a tragedy that American soldiers died on both Obama’s watch and Bush’s. Rather you see it as an opportunity to keep score. “More soldiers died when Bush was in office…ha ha I win.”

It’s the same reason we don’t see the looney left protesting every day like the did when there was a Republican in office despite the fact that some of the most deadliest months in Iraq and Afghanistan have come with Obama in office. The far left doesn’t give a damn about the troops or Iraqi/Afghani civilians. They’ve proven time and time again that the only thing they truly care about is advancing their political agenda at all costs.

Can someone please provide evidence of where either I or Kenn have sung the praises of George W. Bush or the decisions he’s made with Iraq and Afghanistan as Glenn seems to think has occurred? I’m tired of every idiot moonbat and his mother with his head stuck up his ass equating criticism of Obama with some great love for Bush. I have in fact had a love affair with bush since the age of 15 but I don’t much care for George W. Bush.

[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

Arch Conservative

Bad grammar is a sin. That should read either just “deadliest” or “most deadly” in my last post. I was distracted mid sentence and really should spend more time reviewing posts before posting.

http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

Kenn, personally I find no problem with some countries caring enough to prevent murderous governments killing their people.

I’d like it if the UN was given more independence and a world army to stamp out all such regimes permanently.

Don’t forget it is not impossible that one day it could be the United States that commits such acts against its people.

We’ve already seen a massive increase in state security apparatus and increasing control of and intrusion into people’s lives over the last ten years, with no sign of the trend stopping, never mind reducing.

http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

Arch, yes, you should spend more time previewing your comments before posting them.

Hopefully that would not only improve your grammar but reduce the number of gratuitous personal attacks you make…

Glenn Contrarian

Arch –

So…according to you, a war in which ZERO American military personnel have died is every bit as bad as a war in which more than five thousand American military personnel have died.

Is that what you’re saying?

Glenn Contrarian

And Arch –

When it comes to me “loving” Obama, has it ever occurred to you that the only reason that I don’t post a lot of complaints about Obama (that I DO have, mind you) is because I’m too busy pointing out how much worse things were under the Republicans?

I posted an article once showing where I strongly disagreed with Obama – but nobody here seems to remember that. All the BC conservatives can remember is that I do stick up for him when the right-wing nuts falsely accuse him of whatever.

Kenn Jacobine

Glenn,

What about the Libyan civilan lives lost? Is all you care about are American lives? You are a hypocrite. Big leftist like you always proclaiming that government has to help everybody. I guess foreigners or more specifically Arabs don’t count for you.

Obama still has us in Iraq, he has escallated our involvement in Afghanistan, he has increased the drone attacks over Pakistan, launched missiles against Yemen, condoned Saudi troops occupying Bahrain, and yes without provocation invaded Libya. I would say he is as big a war criminal as Bush. Oh, I almost forgot, he has ordered the killing of American ctizens if he thinks they are terrorist.

Kenn Jacobine

Christopher,

The last thing I would want is for the U.N. to save us from a tyrannical U.S. Government. We would probably be trading one tyrant for another.

The Second Amendment is our protection against tyranny. With the increase in gun sales over the last few years, I am hopeful that if necessary gun owners in America would rise to the occasion.

Cannonshop

#21, would you fire on your family members, Kenn? your friends? That’s what you’re basically endorsing when you talk about Guns and Political Change. 40% plus of Americans will vote any Democrat into office on a given election day guaranteed, and a big chunk of that WANT more government, it’s not just voting party-line because Grandad and Dad did it, it’s a belief that it’s the right thing to do.

Do you understand that? CAN you understand that? Can you understand what it means IF your worst-case scenario plays out? No matter what, if the guns come out, Constitutional Government is done, and America-the America that you would seek to protect? is also done.

Maybe I’m too much of an idealist, but I’m not ready to just give up on that, and let the fanatics from either side take over in the vacuum that will ensue, or hand the controls over to an international body comprised mostly of the most brutal and tyrannical strongmen on earth (for those on the Left, look real carefully at the composition of the United Nations. The General Assembly alone is comprised mostly of those who consider “Human Rights” to be something only invoked for personal gain, at all other times an aberration to be stamped out.)

There’s no “Probably” about replacing one tyrant with another, it’s a definite FACT.

Glenn Contrarian

Kenn –

What about the Libyan civilan lives lost? Is all you care about are American lives? You are a hypocrite. Big leftist like you always proclaiming that government has to help everybody. I guess foreigners or more specifically Arabs don’t count for you.

Last I recall, there was NO domestic rebellion going on in Iraq when Your Boy Dubya decided to lie us all into invading a nation that posed no clear and present danger to America…whereas in Libya, there WAS a domestic rebellion already in progress, and NATO only stepped in when it became obvious that the rebels were going to lose.

AND are you now saying that the hundreds – or perhaps the few thousand – of Libyan civilians that have been killed is EQUIVALENT to a minimum of 100000 civilian Iraqi men, women, and children who died thanks to our invasion, not to mention over a MILLION Iraqis who are STILL refugees outside of Iraq’s borders thanks to America?

Exactly how is it that you can possibly claim that the two wars are somehow equal? Especially since we’re only in a supporting role in Libya?

Again, as in comment #12, mote and log, Kenn – mote and log. Who, truly, is being hypocritical here? I will rightly call ANYONE a hypocrite who does NOT call for Dubya and Cheney to be charged with war crimes before The Hague but DOES call out Obama for illegally starting wars.

If you publicly demand Bush and Cheney be hauled up on war crimes charges, then and ONLY then will I consider your complaints against Obama for the same.

S.T..M

Cannon: “I’m not ready to just give up on that, and let the fanatics from either side take over in the vacuum that will ensue”.

Good on you Cannon, love it. It relates to me here too. Yeah, even if we don’t like some of what we’ve got, the good bits are worth keeping.

I’ve recently been to south-east Asia, where I’ve realised that the onlly reason I don’t live like that is because I’ve inherited 1000 years of liberal democratic tradition and rule of law that guarantees my personal freedoms and those of tghe rest of my countrymen and women. The place I went to doesn’t have that luxury.

The rest of the bullshit that goes on here I can put up with just for that alone.

zingzing

so cannonshop (and kenn), you’d fight for your rights, eh? you’d fight to be a human being and someone that counted. you’d fight for what you wanted your country to be.

i realize that this sounds like the exact opposite of what happened 8 years ago. it is. the sides have switched. that’s the bullshit that is politics.

but the libyan people were *thisclose* to toppling their repressive gov’t. that it hasn’t happened is a shame. they were fighting for their freedom and the world knew it and tried to help and it didn’t work. (insert your alternative theories here.)

it’s almost time to give up. there are limits to these things, and that limit, according to the war powers act, is technically today. it’s sad to say, but it’s a stalemate and the warrant will run out. libya’s going to lose.

we’ll see what happens over the next 22 hours. i doubt much will change. but obama has to say something… but what does that mean to nato? nothing? i dunno. we aren’t leading this thing anymore, we’re just a cog.

Glenn Contrarian

Cannonshop –

You’re absolutely right – when the guns come out, America is done. Finito. Kaput. And by that time it won’t really matter who’s right or who’s wrong. The guns will only determine who’s left.

In all honesty, that’s one of the lesser reasons I’ll be retiring with my family overseas. America’s not America anymore. “We take care of our own” is not a virtuous statement anymore – such a sentiment would be despised as smacking of socialism. We are now an oligarchy, a corporatocracy. The idea that Greed is Good has taken root in America and it will not be stopped by anything less than a national catastrophe. America has forgotten what the Greatest Generation taught us, that we CAN work together to overcome any enemy, any national problem – we did with WWII, and we did with a worse debt problem than we have now…and we did it by having the courage to tell the rich that yes, they DO have to pay a higher percentage in taxes than the lower middle class do.

IMO, America is about a quarter of the way down a long, painful slide from the supremacy she knew throughout nearly the whole of the twentieth century, when “we take care of our own” really meant something. It’s sad…but empires come and empires go. For all America’s greatness, we were never able to match what England did for close to three hundred years. Hopefully, we can still learn from England how to transition from supremacy to a major supporting role in world affairs.

zingzing

actually, i’ll drop cannonshop out of that last tirade. knee acting up.

zingzing

dammit glenn.

zingzing

or dammit page… thing.

cannonshop makes a good point. kenn got up on his horse with his gun and said some shit that crossed a line: a political line that cannonshop wouldn’t cross.

and upon this day, cannonshop gets a flower and a hug. good job, sir. well said.

much respect.

Cannonshop

#25 Zing, you’re assuming facts not actually in evidence when you assume the Libyan “People” are the ones spearheading, or even going to benefit, from this…kinetic action.

It’s sort of the same assumption of facts not in evidence that Kenn was presuming with his offhand comment about “The People” rising up with guns inside the U.S.

Go back over your timeline leading into this event-Quaddafi sacked a bunch of his cabinet, then, miraculously, this uprising spontaneously erupts?

It doesn’t fit that way, it fits as a failed palace coup and an argument between the tribal groups inside Libya-groups that were quite happily oppressing people together for thirty years or more until they had a falling out. A closer example would be if the Republicans and the Democrats started actually shooting at one another, it’s not a popular uprising, it’s an internal power struggle that’s spilled over.

zingzing

i dunno, cannonshop. the reason for the nato intervention may not be the best, but the reason for the revolt among the libyan people is hard to doubt. did he sack them, or did they quit… hard to tell.

Sorry about your leg, Zing, but it was reported prior to the conclusion of hte fun in Egypt that Quaddafi sacked most of his cabinet.

It took about a week for the “Uprising” to start from that point, there weren’t internal stresses (even reported in outside sources) prior to that, and the makeup of the groups fighting, as well as the geography, more indicate what I said earlier-a fight between existing power-blocks inside Libya, not a popular uprising, though the groups involved no doubt used Egypt’s example as part of their propoganda.

Given who urged us into this (France, mostly), and their policies previous to this ‘uprising’, I’d suggest that, taken from the conspiracy minded mold of “Imperialism”, that we’re doing France’s dirty-work yet again. (and just think, in the mid-eighties, the French refused to let American Aircraft fly over their territory on the way to bomb Libya…or more specifically, Muoammar Quaddafi’s house.)

http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

Kenn, so you think a bunch of Americans with guns could take on and defeat the US military and security?

That is so naive as to be laughable…

Kenn Jacobine

That is how the minutemen started out in defeating the British. No, I don’t, but I would be hopeful that our military would come over to our side and not kill their own countrymen.

Arch Conservative

No matter how many times it’s pointed out that Obama and the Dems have chosen to continue with military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan he ignores it.

He’s like a broken record.

“Kenn, so you think a bunch of Americans with guns could take on and defeat the US military and security?”

No. What is laughable is that you’ve apparently not even entertained the possibility that, as Kenn just stated, those in uniform would take it off and join those fighting the state which has abused and oppressed them.

Kenn Jacobine

Glenn is a partisan dupe. He actually called Dubya “my boy”. I criticised Dubya like I do Obama. The problem for Glenn is that he knows nothing outside the left-right, demo-repub paradigm. He can’t argue outside the box. When he disagrees with you he labels you right-winger, republican, Bushite, etc…

Glenn Contrarian

Kenn –

I’m not just a Democrat – I’m a progressive. There’s a difference.

Why don’t you go listen to then opinions of progressive pundits concerning Obama, and you’d probably be quite surprised. One of the more common descriptions one hears of Obama by progressive pundits like Norman Goldman or Mike Malloy are that Obama is a “moderate Republican”. Come to think of it, a lot of progressives have the same opinion of Bill Clinton.

Are we real happy with Obama? No. For all the good things he has done, he’s broken a lot of promises to us, his base. But will we vote for him this next election? Yeah. Why? Because the alternative is a GOP candidate who will be a wholly-owned subsidiary of Big Oil and Big Pharma.

You (and Arch) can go ahead with your snide comments because I’ve seen firsthand your lack of understanding of history despite your chosen profession. I’m not playing your game by your rules. I state what I believe to be right…whether I like the truth or not. I can’t say the same for a lot of people here.

http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

Kenn/Arch: It is one thing to hope that the military would not obey orders against their own people, but is there a reasonable expectation that the military, the police and the security forces would actually do that?

Given the examples we have seen over the last ten years of abuse and torture of prisoners; the regular excessive force used by the police in obeying orders in the name of the law; the unnecessarily excessive powers of the Department of Homeland Security; and the recent examples of military loyalty we have seen in a variety of countries this year, it takes a certain excessive exuberance (that to my mind borders on the unacceptably risky) to put one’s trust for survival in the hope that the USA government’s various armed enforcers won’t obey such orders.

Leroy

CR, good point. I’m afraid that the second amendment stalwarts have a vested interest in such fabulous beliefs, however, so it will be difficult to dissuade them.

IMO the 2nd amendment folks themselves are weak vessels, since they made no move whatsoever when GWB instituted the Patriot Act, which will surely be a principle component of real oppression.

zingzing

“it was reported prior to the conclusion of hte fun in Egypt that Quaddafi sacked most of his cabinet.”

then in the next few weeks more and more of the higher ups were defecting or joining the opposition.

and why do you suddenly know so much about who we are fighting for and against over there when just a few days ago, even the us military didn’t know who we were fighting?

“we’re doing France’s dirty-work yet again. (and just think, in the mid-eighties, the French refused to let American Aircraft fly over their territory on the way to bomb Libya…or more specifically, Muoammar Quaddafi’s house.)”

god-man reagan would have bombed libya?

zingzing

(even the us military didn’t know who we were fighting?)*

*(in your previous comments, that’s what you seemed to say.)

Cannonshop

#41 Reagan DID bomb Libya-after Lockerbie. A move that probably wasn’t all that well advised, except that in the aftermath, Quaddafi was cowed into moderating his stance wrt the U.S. and Terrorism. The F-111’s used had to fly AROUND france from bases in England, because the French refused to give ‘em permission.

Note that France didn’t want NATO to hit uncle Moammar when he was sponsoring half the active islamic terrorists in the region, nor when he was backing one side in the Ethiopian civil war that generated all those pics of starving kids and “We Are the World” theme songs, they called for NATO action when he sacked his cabinet and had a local “Uprising”.

And no, in the first couple weeks, the Military did NOT know who to bomb. Among the “armored columns” we hit, includes one of the “Rebel” factions, and a convoy of refugees. The aftermath of which prompted the Brits of all people to put guys on the ground to mark targets-a move usually reserved for BEFORE you start lobbing Cruise missiles and dropping bombs.

S.T..M

The whole point of this arghument is moot. Americans won’t pick up arms and start shooting at their own government/opponents in the political process. The vast majority of Ameroicans are smart enough to understand they can make that choice at the ballot box, not at the point of a gun. A few criminal-minded people might, and they’ll be treated like criminals by the law enforcement agencies and the military if they do.

There’s plenty of nonsense on here from time to time – yes, mea culpa too – but this takes the cake.

Leroy

So that makes the 2nd amendment argument moot: the 2nd does not represent the last ditch stand of patriots because americans will never take up arms against the authorities.

So, can we retire that argument in favor of guns?

Arch Conservative

“The vast majority of Americans are smart enough to understand they can make that choice at the ballot box”

Yeah, because that’s working out so fucking great.

iball

What’s to be made of so-called democratic countries that try to sucker their citizens with childish propaganda that labels the Libyan military, ‘Forces loyal to Gadhafi’? Google ‘forces loyal to’ and see what comes up. Trying to pretend that the majority of Libyans support the NATO-backed insurgents is laughable. So is pretending that the majority of people from countries attacking Libya support this assault on a sovereign nation.
Besides Gadhafi, Chavez and Ouattara on Google is the heading, ‘Forces loyal to David Cameron.’ It links to ‘Unconfirmed reports of forces loyal to David Cameron attacking rebels in Trafalgar Square on March 26th.’ What happened to the ‘Forces loyal to Obama’ headlines? Is he that unpopular?

http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

Kenn,

Great article. It is heartening to see someone who questions things and sees through the bullshit.

S.T..M

Archie: “Yeah, because that’s working out so fucking great.”

Ah well, Arch … under our system, you accept the referee’s decision. In this case, the ref is the vote.

There’s plenty I don’t like about about what’s going on here at the moment in regard to our incompetent, lying, nanny-state government, and as often as some of us might feel like taking far more drastic action right now with our hare-brained government leaving its ugly footprint all over our lives, the resort of actions of a criminal nature are just that.

I also notice that nowhere in the US constitution does it mention that it’s OK for Americans to take up arms against their own government.

The last time that happened on any serious scale there was a long and bloody civil war. The other attempts since, like Timothy McVeigh’s effort, were just acts of criminality.

I know what you mean, though, Arch, I really do …

I’d like to do certain things to the government here at the moment, but I’ll wait for a couple of years and do it with a pencil instead.

They’ll already lost most of their heartland voters; I just hope they haven’t destroyed the economy too by then.

Jordan Richardson

I am hopeful that if necessary gun owners in America would rise to the occasion.

Says the guy who lives overseas.

Kenn Jacobine

Glenn – Ron Paul is not bought and paid for by big business. This is what I mean by you lumping everybody that you disagree with together in one big pot.

Jordan – what difference does it make if I am overseas? How does that preclude me from sharing my opinion?

zingzing

“what difference does it make if I am overseas? How does that preclude me from sharing my opinion?”

come on, kenn. you can figure it out.

Glenn Contrarian

Kenn –

I’ll give you that Ron Paul shouldn’t be lumped in as being owned by Big Business, AND I’ll give you that he’s got a lot of positions that sound good and make sense…

…he’s still Looney Tunes. Ron Paul is a strict idealist who apparently doesn’t understand the necessity of pragmatism in government. Strict idealism without allowance for pragmatism is a recipe for tyranny, Kenn. As an historian, you should know that instinctively.

Most of the following twenty reasons why I won’t vote for Ron Paul can be found here. Ontheissues.org is a great site – and I’ll be using it a LOT.

1 – Ron Paul allowed racist articles to be posted in his name, under his byline, in his magazine, over the course of years. (This is, of course, assuming that he’s telling the truth that he did NOT write the articles that appear in his name, under his byline, in his name, over the course of years)

2 – He has stated he would get rid of the National Flood Insurance policy…and as I have pointed out, this would devastate the housing industry since most major cities in America’s heartland (not to mention the cities in most of Florida, central California, and all along our vast coastline) are built in flood plains and the banks will NOT approve of mortgages or approve building loans in flood plains if flood insurance is not purchased as part of the deal. And this isn’t including the majority of America’s farms since they tend to be built on flatlands which are usually flood plains.

It would be really interesting – and tragic – to watch half of America’s real estate market and MOST our farming industry come to a screeching halt just so Ron Paul can bring his libertarian fantasy to fruition.

4 – Ron Paul has stated that the Civil Rights Act was more about property than race relations (of course no one would EVER think this has anything to do with #1 above….)

5 – He has stated that there should not be a law that women should get equal pay for equal work to men.

6 – He has voted against allowing adoptions by gay couples.

7 – He voted NO on letting shareholders vote on executive compensation (yeah, since when should shareholders have a say, right?)

8 – He wants schools to present scientific facts that support creationism.

9 – He wants equal funds for abstinence as contraceptive-based education (never mind that such has NEVER been shown to be effective).

10 – He wants tax-credited programs for Christian schooling (so much for separation of church and state).

11 – With the exception of subsidies, he is a HUGE friend of Big Oil, since he wants no regulation at all.

12 – Is against requiring vaccination of children (has this doctor heard of polio? Of SMALLPOX? Smallpox has been eradicated, and polio nearly so…and ONLY because of mandatory vaccination)

13 – Voted against the AMBER Alert system

14 – Stated that “Government investment in ANY business is malinvestment.” I wonder if he’s ever heard of nuclear power, of communications satellites, of every advance we’ve ever gotten from the space program?

15 – Voted NO on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility

16 – Stated that socialized medicine won’t work; nor will managed care, and that
managed care is expensive and hasn’t worked. (I wonder what’s his explanation, then, why America is something like forty-seventh on the life-expectancy list…and all but one of the nations with higher national life expectancies has socialized or managed health care?)

17 – Believes that the minimum wage takes away opportunities, especially for blacks. (AHHH! So THAT’S it! Allow businesses to pay black people LESS, and that means that businesses will pay black people MORE! Brilliant!)

18 – Believes that Social Security is a failure…never mind that Social Security has NEVER defaulted and that millions of elderly Americans over the years have depended on Social Security to have food on the table.

19 – Would allow teacher-led prayer in public schools.

20 – Wants to declare English as the “official language” of America.

http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

8 – He wants schools to present scientific facts that support creationism.

Good luck to him with that: there aren’t any.

Kenn Jacobine

Please provide a source that he would allow teacher-led prayer and wants English as the official language.

As I said, Ron Paul has a lot of good ideas…but he is a strictly idealistic Looney-Tuner who cannot see past his own dogma. That makes him a real danger to the democratic ideal of America.

S.T..M

Kenn: ” … English as the official language”.

He’s at least on a winner with that one. Why shouldn’t it be? It’s the langiage of the country. Migrants to America should be requitred to learn it as a condition of permanent residency or citizenship … even if that learning is government-funded.

Why should this be an issue even worth discussing??

Arch Conservative

“Ah well, Arch … under our system, you accept the referee’s decision. In this case, the ref is the vote.”

Unless you’re a Wisconsin Democrat. Then you hide out in Illinois.

Oh and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to declare English our national language………unless your a whackjob leftist with a penchant for calling anyone and everyone that disagrees with you “racist.”

Glenn Contrarian

Stan –

The reason it shouldn’t be the ‘official’ language is that none of us know where it will end. Right now, for instance, one can open up a private university where classes are taught in, say, Spanish. Would such a law outlaw the private sector’s ability to do that? Nobody knows.

Secondly, while I certainly can’t speak enough of another language to claim that I’m bilingual, I’ve learned enough to know that there are words in other languages that carry concepts that cannot be easily translated into English. By making English the ‘official’ language, we would also be discouraging the use of any other languages…and the actual educational level of our people would suffer as a result.

Thirdly, English is already the ‘official’ language in fact if not in law. Do we really need to legislate what is already the practice of nearly the entire nation? The only ones who would profit by such legislation…are the lawyers who would litigate the inevitable lawsuits.

Glenn Contrarian

And for Arch and Stan –

Conservatives claim to want ‘limited government’…but how, exactly, is declaring English as the ‘official language’ a form of “limited government”?

And how far will it go? Will local governments – or even states – begin outlawing the speaking of foreign languages in public places? Don’t tell me it can’t happen, because that’s exactly where such a law can – will – eventually lead.

Glenn Contrarian

(off topic)

My niece just had a baby…and she named him Khrushchev Glenn [last name]. I’m still wondering if I should be flattered….

Kenn Jacobine

Glenn,

The prayer bill would simply protect a persons right to pray in school. It would not force teacher led prayer. It is simply a protection of the First Amendment.

The English bill would not make Englsh the official language just simply require immigrants to know enough English to know what they are agreeing to. Your characterizations of both bills is disingenuous to say the least.

iball

I see NATO has once again valiantly protected Libyan men, women and children by blowing them to bits with smart bombs.

Glenn Contrarian

It doesn’t force it, Kenn…but it allows teacher-led prayer.

And THAT would put untoward pressure on the students.

http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

Your characterizations of both bills is disingenuous to say the least.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

S.T..M

Glenn, sorry, but the country was founded on English, everything’s been done in English, English IS the national language.

Who cares where it’s going to end.

Sure, speak other languages. Keep your own culture.

But here I in Oz I would suggest to all the new Australians arriving here all the time: Be a part of our culture too and learn to speak English, or don’t bother coming in the first place. Yeah, we’re welcoming, provided you want to take all the good stuff on offer here, including English.

I’m sure most Americans are feeling the same right now.

What’s the national language of Mexico?

Oh, I know, it’s Spanish, not English.

All those Americans retiring down there, and in central and south America, do they have to press #2 for English … no they they fucking don’t. And do Mexicans, Panamanians or Barzilians have to press #1 for Spanish or Portuguese. No, they don’t.

Come on Glenn, there are some things every nation has a right to keep sacred, no matter how welcoming it is of others.

Language should be one of those. Are there groups of Americans on the left who think this is OK? If so, they might be the only lefties in the world whho think it’s OK to slow get rid of their national language.

Madness. Almost as loony as some of the right-wing stuff on here.

zingzing

it’s england’s language. we speak “get off my lawn.”

Kenn Jacobine

#64 – right Glenn, it is libertine in that it allows Americans to exercise their 1st Amendment rights to freedom of religion.

I lied? It looks to me like Ron Paul co-sponsored both bills. How, exactly, did I lie?

You must answer, because to accuse someone of LYING – vice being simply wrong or incorrect – would mean that I intentionally tried to deceive.

So…

1 – HOW is what I stated wrong or incorrect, and

2 – WHERE did I post anything with the intent to deceive?

Glenn Contrarian

Stan –

Over the years I’ve seen several instances of idiot business owners posting signs that they will refuse to serve anyone who doesn’t speak English. I’ve seen men in the Navy who were greatly offended when they heard two fellow sailors speak to each other in a foreign language.

English is ALREADY the default national language here…but if we put it into law, we WILL see legislation outlawing the use of any other language in the workplace, in school, in public. Will such legislation pass? I hope not – but it might. The only ones who win in such a situation are the lawyers – and IMO they don’t need any more help.

Stan, let’s have a little empathy here. Let’s say you were to go stay in, say, Myanmar for a while on a business trip, and at a business meeting you see a fellow Aussie and the two of you start having a proper conversation in the Queen’s English. Then all of a sudden you are accosted by everyone else there that it is illegal to speak any other language than Burmese.

Does that sound ridiculous? Of course it does…but the designation of an official language in a nation where there are so many far-right-wing dumbclucks raises that very possibility. I’d like to avoid that possibility, thank you very much.

Also, the day is coming that non-Hispanic whites will be a minority…and if current trends hold, then the eventual majority will be Hispanic. When they become the majority, should they, then, change the law to say that Spanish is the national language of America?

I’d rather not open up this particular legislative can of worms, Stan.

Glenn Contrarian

And Kenn –

While you’re trying to figure out how to respond to #69 above, bear in mind that in comment #53 I listed twenty extremist or ill-thought-out positions by Ron Paul. You’ve argued against two of those positions. How about the other 18?

Kenn Jacobine

Glenn,

You said he is proposing teacher-led prayer. He is not.

You said he is proposing English as the official language. He is not. You were either lazy with your interpretation or lying.

Give me a chance to address his other “extreme” positions. I will be back shortly.

Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools.

The children will not be required to participate…but you know as well as I do that (1) if there is no law against teachers leading a class prayer, then some WILL do so, and (2) children WILL be forced by peer pressure to join in.

Are you somehow of the mindset that even though Ron Paul CO-SPONSORS a bill, that he’s still not responsible for the contents of the bill and cannot be said to support that bill?

C’mon, Kenn! I SHOWED YOU THE FREAKIN’ BILLS THAT HE CO-SPONSORED…and yet you still call me a liar!

http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

the day is coming that non-Hispanic whites will be a minority…and if current trends hold, then the eventual majority will be Hispanic. When they become the majority, should they, then, change the law to say that Spanish is the national language of America?

I’m not so sure they’ll want to, Glenn.

Of course, history is full of examples of languages dying out in the face of an influx of speakers of another language which comes to dominate. There are numerous extinct Celtic and native American tongues which bear silent testimony to that.

However, history also shows that English is an astonishingly robust language, and was even before it became the lingua franca of the world. The invading Normans couldn’t kill it even when they banned it: it just nicked a bunch of French words, adapted them to its own purposes and carried on.

In the case of the USA, it’ll be a question of which language blinks first. And my bet is that English won’t be going anywhere fast.

Glenn Contrarian

Doc –

I’m not saying they would want to, or that English would ever go away. I’m well aware that it is the lingua franca of the world and will be for at least another generation or two. All I’m doing is pointing out the kind of precedent that such a law would set.

http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

Yes, I know, Glenn: language laws are fairly pointless, stupid and almost always end up being draconian. In one corner of my own home island, for instance, it wasn’t much more than 50 or 60 years ago that kids caught speaking Welsh at school were severely punished.

Now, Welsh is a compulsory part of the National Curriculum in that country.

Just as English has adopted words from Latin, French, Hindi and goodness knows how many other languages and made them its own, American English is quite capable of doing the same in its encounter with Latin American Spanish, and coming out all the more vigorous for it.

Indeed, this is already happening. One example: in California, the Mexican slang word for underpants, chonies, is already in common usage.

Kenn Jacobine

Glenn,

Here are my answers to your other points.

1 – Ron Paul allowed racist articles to be posted in his name, under his byline, in his magazine, over the course of years. (This is, of course, assuming that he’s telling the truth that he did NOT write the articles that appear in his name, under his byline, in his name, over the course of years)

Bogus claim that the MSM has not even covered.

2 – He has stated he would get rid of the National Flood Insurance policy…and as I have pointed out, this would devastate the housing industry since most major cities in America’s heartland (not to mention the cities in most of Florida, central California, and all along our vast coastline) are built in flood plains and the banks will NOT approve of mortgages or approve building loans in flood plains if flood insurance is not purchased as part of the deal. And this isn’t including the majority of America’s farms since they tend to be built on flatlands which are usually flood plains.

The government should allow the private sector to supply flood insurance otherwise it is a ridiculous use of taxpayer money and promotes a moral hazard.

Abortion is not a federal issue and as Dr. Paul has stated should be given to the individual states to decide. The government has no right constitutionally and morally to fund things like stem-cell research.

4 – Ron Paul has stated that the Civil Rights Act was more about property than race relations (of course no one would EVER think this has anything to do with #1 above….)

It was. As morally repugnant as discrimination is the CRA violates the Constitution’s protection of private property rights. It has no right mandating that private businesses of any kind must serve who the government says to serve. People can boycott businesses that discriminate to get them to peaceably change.

5 – He has stated that there should not be a law that women should get equal pay for equal work to men.

It is unconstitutional

6 – He has voted against allowing adoptions by gay couples.

I would have to see the source on this one. I will say that libertarians believe adoption is a private matter and thus gay and lesbians would not be restricted from adopting as long as the biological parents and private agencies consented

7 – He voted NO on letting shareholders vote on executive compensation (yeah, since when should shareholders have a say, right?)

Again, I would have to see the source, but again libertarians believe the government should not mandate the practices of business in this regard. If you are unhappy that a company you have stock in pays their CEO too much then you can divest your holdings.

8 – He wants schools to present scientific facts that support creationism.

Ultimately the schools should be privatized so all these moral, ethical, religious, and other issues become a moot point

9 – He wants equal funds for abstinence as contraceptive-based education (never mind that such has NEVER been shown to be effective).

I can’t see him wanting any federal funding for sex ed. Please supply source.

10 – He wants tax-credited programs for Christian schooling (so much for separation of church and state).

It is wrong for parents to pay for public schools with their property taxes. What is worse is them paying that and then private school tuition for their own kids.

11 – With the exception of subsidies, he is a HUGE friend of Big Oil, since he wants no regulation at all.

So he is also a huge friend of all businesses. He certainly would regulate things that prevent others from enjoying their natural right freedoms. Fraud is prohibited, and if a company damaged (polluted) the private property of another they would be held to make the victim whole.

12 – Is against requiring vaccination of children (has this doctor heard of polio? Of SMALLPOX? Smallpox has been eradicated, and polio nearly so…and ONLY because of mandatory vaccination)

Parents are entrusted with children not the state.

13 – Voted against the AMBER Alert system

A state issue under federalism

14 – Stated that “Government investment in ANY business is malinvestment.” I wonder if he’s ever heard of nuclear power, of communications satellites, of every advance we’ve ever gotten from the space program?

It is only the market that can determine what it requires through market research and the principle of supply and demand.

15 – Voted NO on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility

State issue

16 – Stated that socialized medicine won’t work; nor will managed care, and that
managed care is expensive and hasn’t worked. (I wonder what’s his explanation, then, why America is something like forty-seventh on the life-expectancy list…and all but one of the nations with higher national life expectancies has socialized or managed health care?)

It is a complicated issue and you continue to solely fault the lack of socialized medicine in the U.S. for lower life expectancy. Things like lifestyle, diet, culture, heredity all figure into life expectancy. Government involvement doesn’t work. Costs are the issue and less government would bring down the costs so more people could afford care.

17 – Believes that the minimum wage takes away opportunities, especially for blacks. (AHHH! So THAT’S it! Allow businesses to pay black people LESS, and that means that businesses will pay black people MORE! Brilliant!)

It has been proven that the minimum wage causes unemployment especially for those at the lower end of the pay scale – blacks, Hispanics, teenagers.

18 – Believes that Social Security is a failure…never mind that Social Security has NEVER defaulted and that millions of elderly Americans over the years have depended on Social Security to have food on the table.

It is bankrupt, even government economists are warning that if something is not done soon it will devour almost the entire budget within 10 to 15 years

Glenn, all of Dr. Paul and other libertarians’ positions are based on the rule of law (Constitution at top) and property rights. These were the positions of most of the Founders and they are the right positions as well given how government screws up everything it touches. You see Dr. Paul is not interested in power for power’s sake. He votes his philosophy and has been elected 12 times to Congress. He is the only candidate for president this time around that would actually address and permanently fix the problems – given Congress’ acquiescence (and I grant it is not too likely).

So, short snippets of emotional rhetoric from you doesn’t do justice to libertarian principles. I truly don’t doubt that your intentions are righteous. Just can’t understand why leftists can’t believe the same thing about others they disagree with. You are always using scare tactics and name calling as a response to ideas different from yours.

Bogus claim that the MSM has not even covered.

2 – He has stated he would get rid of the National Flood Insurance policy…and as I have pointed out, this would devastate the housing industry since most major cities in America’s heartland (not to mention the cities in most of Florida, central California, and all along our vast coastline) are built in flood plains and the banks will NOT approve of mortgages or approve building loans in flood plains if flood insurance is not purchased as part of the deal. And this isn’t including the majority of America’s farms since they tend to be built on flatlands which are usually flood plains.

The government should allow the private sector to supply flood insurance otherwise it is a ridiculous use of taxpayer money and promotes a moral hazard.

It would be really interesting – and tragic – to watch half of America’s real estate market and MOST our farming industry come to a screeching halt just so Ron Paul can bring his libertarian fantasy to fruition.

3 – Ron Paul is strictly against abortion rights and against embryonic stem-cell research.
Abortion is not a federal issue and as Dr. Paul has stated should be given to the individual states to decide. The government has no right constitutionally and morally to fund things like stem-cell research

4 – Ron Paul has stated that the Civil Rights Act was more about property than race relations (of course no one would EVER think this has anything to do with #1 above….)
It was. As morally repugnant as discrimination is the CRA violates the Constitution’s protection of private property rights. It has no right mandating that private businesses of any kind must serve who the government says to serve. People can boycott businesses that discriminate to get them to peaceably change.

5 – He has stated that there should not be a law that women should get equal pay for equal work to men.
It is unconstitutional
6 – He has voted against allowing adoptions by gay couples.
I would have to see the source on this one. I will say that libertarians believe adoption is a private matter and thus gay and lesbians would not be restricted from adopting as long as the biological parents and private agencies consented

7 – He voted NO on letting shareholders vote on executive compensation (yeah, since when should shareholders have a say, right?)
Again, I would have to see the source, but again libertarians believe the government should not mandate the practices of business in this regard. If you are unhappy that a company you have stock in pays their CEO too much then you can divest your holdings.

8 – He wants schools to present scientific facts that support creationism.
Ultimately the schools should be privatized so all these moral, ethical, religious, and other issues become a moot point

9 – He wants equal funds for abstinence as contraceptive-based education (never mind that such has NEVER been shown to be effective). I can’t see him wanting any federal funding for sex ed. Please supply source.

10 – He wants tax-credited programs for Christian schooling (so much for separation of church and state). Again it is wrong for parents to pay for public schools with their property taxes. What is worse is them paying that and then private school tuition for their own kids.

11 – With the exception of subsidies, he is a HUGE friend of Big Oil, since he wants no regulation at all.
So he is also a huge friend of all businesses. He certainly would regulate things that prevent others from enjoying their natural right freedoms. Fraud is prohibited, and if a company damaged (polluted) the private property of another they would be held to make the victim whole.

12 – Is against requiring vaccination of children (has this doctor heard of polio? Of SMALLPOX? Smallpox has been eradicated, and polio nearly so…and ONLY because of mandatory vaccination)
Parents are entrusted with children not the state.

13 – Voted against the AMBER Alert system
A state issue

14 – Stated that “Government investment in ANY business is malinvestment.” I wonder if he’s ever heard of nuclear power, of communications satellites, of every advance we’ve ever gotten from the space program?
It is, only the market can determine what it requires through market research and the principle of supply and demand.

15 – Voted NO on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility
State issue

16 – Stated that socialized medicine won’t work; nor will managed care, and that
managed care is expensive and hasn’t worked. (I wonder what’s his explanation, then, why America is something like forty-seventh on the life-expectancy list…and all but one of the nations with higher national life expectancies has socialized or managed health care?)
It is a complicated issue and you continue to solely fault the lack of socialized medicine in the U.S. for lower life expectancy. Things like lifestyle, diet, culture, heredity all figure into life expectancy. Government involvement doesn’t work. Costs are the issue and less government would bring down the costs so more people could afford care.

17 – Believes that the minimum wage takes away opportunities, especially for blacks. (AHHH! So THAT’S it! Allow businesses to pay black people LESS, and that means that businesses will pay black people MORE! Brilliant!)
It has been proven that the minimum wage causes unemployment especially for those at the lower end of the pay scale – blacks, Hispanics, teenagers.

18 – Believes that Social Security is a failure…never mind that Social Security has NEVER defaulted and that millions of elderly Americans over the years have depended on Social Security to have food on the table.
It is bankrupt, even government economists are warning that if something is not done soon it will devour almost the entire budget within 10 to 15 years

Glenn, all of Dr. Paul and other libertarians’ positions are based on the rule of law (Constitution at top) and property rights. These were the positions of most of the Founders and they are the right positions as well given how government screws up everything it touches. You see Dr. Paul is not interested in power for power’s sake. He votes his philosophy and has been elected 12 times to Congress. He is the only candidate for president this time around that would actually address and permanently fix the problems – given Congress’ acquiescence (and I grant it is not too likely).

So, short snippets of emotional rhetoric from you doesn’t do justice to libertarian principles. I truly don’t doubt that your intentions are righteous. Just can’t understand why leftists can’t believe the same thing about others they disagree with. You are always using scare tactics and name calling as a response to ideas different from yours.

STM

Glenn (and Doc), I’m not talking about outlawing any other language. I don’t have a problem with people speaking other languages to each other in this country or any other country, including yours. You can also make laws that say while English is the official language, it’s also illegal not to serve someone in a shop on the basis of their lack of English, or to stop a business that deals only with Spanish-speaking people from hiring people who only speak Spanish. Anti-discrimination laws are good in that respect.

But you genuinely cannot understand what a country is REALLY all about unless you speak the language. It’s also quite disrespectful in my view to emigrate to a country and NOT learn the language. It shows that it’s only about you, not about your willingness to become part of the culture and to give to it and contribute to it in a meaningful fashion.

What I’m suggesting is that English should be the OFFICIAL language of the country … in education, government business, etc.

And to make the learning of the language a prerequisite, say, for getting a driver’s licence. I can’t understand how in Oz we give driver’s licences to people who did the test in, say, Mandarin, Cantonese, Korean, Arabic, Serbo-Croation or the dialect of Burkina-Faso. I was at the motor-registry today and noticed you didn’t have to be able to read English to get a licence – just memorise what the signs mean and do the test written part of the test in your own language or with an interpreter. How does that work. You see a sign saying “emergency detour – left lane must turn left”, and can’t read it??

My view is that permanent residency and citizenship in this country should include a clause about at least trying to learn English – even if the government pays for it through the public education system. My understanding is that you can do the written citizenship test in Oz in a foreign language, answering questions about Australia. It’s just political correctness gone mad. Language is key to becoming part of a culture. Different if you’re just visiting a place, but moving there and not giving a rat’s is ridiculous.

I mean, otherwise, why bother coming??

And I’m serious about that. I welcome any new Australians who want to make a better life for themselves. I don’t welcome those who think we’re a soft touch and they can continually rort our generosity, kindness and compassion for no other end than themselves.

I feel the same way about radical islamists who want us to adopt Sharia law.

My view: if it worked so well before, why not go back there and keep practising it if your religion demands it.

There are a couple of dozen or so countries throughout the world that have sharia law or some form of it. That’s a couple of dozen or so others to choose from rather than coming here and complaining about our benign, free and fair rule of law.

Because this country isn’t one of them.

I believe people who complain about this stuff and who weren’t born here and came here for a better life should either accept what we are and shut up, or ship out.

That includes the learning of English.

I’m sure many Americans (or Brits, or Canadians, or New Zealanders) feel the same way on this as many Aussies do.

STM

Sometimes I wonder whether the people who think they run this country (we do, in case they’ve forgotten) and the fatcat PC bureaucrats they hire dream most of the laws of this country up while they’re in the pub or at dinner parties and write them down on napkins and beer coasters.

The latest thing in Australia is: If you are a refugee seeking resident, housed either in the community or in an immigration detention centre (an illegal arrival or an asylum seeker who has arrived on a boat via people smugglers), the government gives you $2500 a year (that’s about $US2800) to make phone calls home. That’s, what, $7 a day?

You can phone Sydney-New York these days for a few cents a minute. I called Yellowknife, Canada, from Sydney, Australia, last year and spoke for nearly an hour. The total bill: about 20 cents.

I wonder who they’re talking to and what they’re talking about. Their friends and relatives most likely, about how good it is and why they should come.

“Hello Ahmed – mate, you HAVE to make your way down here. It’s risky but it’s worth it. They’re a soft touch … look at this: they even pay us to call you every week! And if you don’t end up getting a job, you get a free house or money for rent, extra money for every kid you have, money for food, free education, free hospital care, and all without even having to have a job or pay taxes. Everyone drives a car too, even if they don’t have a job. Amazing!”.

Fair dinkum. Let’s keep being welcoming, kind and compassionate but just a little bit tougher.

I’d prefer: “Hello Ahmed, you have to come here. There’s work for everyone, you can easily get a job, the pay’s good, and the housing is nothing like we’ve got at home. They have only three people living in houses with three bedrooms. Now we’ve worked hard, we’ve got enough money to buy one. All we had to do was learn the language, accept their culture WITHOUT being forced to give up ours, and make a contribution to society by working hard for a fair day’s pay, paying our taxes and obeying their laws.”

Having said that, I would like to see more genuine refugees take their place in this country, rather than people who think they can just arrive illegally and we’ll accommodate them no matter what.

STM

And yes, I do understand we should cut people some slack and shouldn’t expect people to walk into jobs or private housing the minute they lob, especially if they don’t have the requisite work or language skills.

But there are limits, and there are limits.

(You might have guessed this is a bit of an issue here at the moment). I’d also like to think I’m centrist in my views compared to some of the looney left and loony right ones I’ve heard lately.

Let’s bring back some commonsense to this kind of debate.

Glenn Contrarian

Stan –

I’m not talking about outlawing any other language.

Obviously…but it’s precisely that very possibility that right-wing nutcases here stateside would try to make happen. And that’s why I’m against making it a law.

Glenn Contrarian

Kenn –

I don’t have time tonight to address your most recent, um, er, reply. When I have time tomorrow, I will.